Slashdot Mirror
Card Makers Say UK Citizens Want Biometric ID Cards
ArsonPanda writes "ZDnet is running a story on a recent survey in the UK showing overwhelming 80% public support of universal, biometricly enhanced citizen ID cards. Everybody here's fine with supplying the gubmit w/ your retinal scans and fingerprints, right?"
According to the BBC most people are against such an ID card and plans for one will most likely be abandoned.
Here are some links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2688697.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2657143.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2583651.stm
The government claim only 2000 responses have been received, yet Stand know that nearly 5000 people sent in concerns about ID cards via their website.
All British Slashdotters should Fax their MP and complain about this.
It worked last year when the stand/fax your mp campaign made the government change their minds about letting every UK agency have access to our private data.
It worked last time, and it will work again, spend 10 minutes writing a fax, and make your views and opinion of this whitewash heard.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
An independent survey at Stand has been taken, amongst others, where the overwhelming majority of responses have been against the introduction of an ID card of any kind.
The Government consultation emall address automagically responded to all submissions with "Thank you for your email in support of the introduction of entitlement cards". Its clear that they want to push this through wether it will reduce crime and fraud or not, and wether anyone wants these cards or not.
The Home Secretary himeslf had his identity stolen by a journalist to highlight the dangers of identity theft, which will without a doubt rise if these new cards are introduced.
For an insight into why these cards are true evil, read this piece in The Guardian about how the Spanish have been habituated into ID cards like battery chickens who refuse to leave thier cages when the doors are opened.
Really, if Europeans want to have ID cards, no one in the UK has a problem with that, and no one here is interested in arguing with Europeans who think that ID cards are "no problem at all". If you want ID cards, you are free(??!) to use them all you like. The British do not want them, under any circumstances short of actual war in Europe, and even then, only temporarily.
For us ID cards are a waste of time, money and most importantly, a violation of the human rights of British Citizens.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Good grief, if someone snatches my wallet I'd be quite glad if CCTV helped to catch the thief. Wasn't CCTV evidence used to catch the killers of Jamie Bulger?
The bit about illegal immigrants is funny.
/rant
The state of the UK today, I quite believe that if the "researcher" had asked the participants, "Would you support ID cards if it meant illegal immigrants/asylum seekers [the two seem to be interchangable in a lot of people's minds] would be shot on sight?" about 75% of those asked would have said "yes!" and a further 50% of that sample would have added, "but don't kill them staright away, let them suffer a bit."
It's fucking scary is what it is.
We have a programme on Channel4, called "Without Prejudice" where a bunch of people decide whether one person from another bunch of people get £50,000, and one of the "tests" is asking about their beliefs, and usually the subject of illegal immigrants/asylum seekers comes up, and from the answers of about 95% of these people, you'd think we'd lost the war and the UK was a Nazi fucking state.
It's somewhat depressing.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
For instance, New Zealand, a so-called enlightened and Democratically-governed nation, has had a number of Citizen Referendums over the last decade, each one overwhelmingly going against the Government of the day's desires, and each time that Citizen Referendum has been totally ignored by that Government of the day. And the citizens didn't bat an eye.
http://www.mediaeater.com/cameras/locations.html is a good start. There are many other credible proofs out there that I don't have handy at the present time.
Ho Ho Ho. Not been the the UK recently have we?
The only city with any real underground is London. Newcastle and Glasgow have small single line systems. And that's it. Some urban railways too in various places, but *not* the main means of getting around.
Most CCTV used in crimes seems to be from shops, malls etc. Usually takes the police days if not weeks to locate and collate these when there's a serious incident.
You may find it difficult to believe, but apart from city centre 'hot spots' there's very little CCTV monitoring, that that there is is generally obvious. The system does not seem to be abused, and unlike the US we have had a serious terrorist threat in the UK for several decades which has merited some kind of response.
We've also a set of very active Civil Rights organisations here who jump on abuses of any kind, and if abuse of CCTV gets to the point where it is a threat then we'll be in a serious situation with society generally and CCTV abuse will be among the least of our worries. That is, IMHO the level of CCTV monitoring we have - and even some increase in it - can be controlled so that it is not abused by the checks and balances we have in place in our society already. Your situation of course may be different and there may be insufficient democratic checks in the USA so that you could compliment such systems without serious corruption problems.
... then fax your local MP (UK citizens only). stand.org.uk are campaigning against this, and you can use a web-based, quick fax submission which will help register an anti-ID card opinion.
There was recently a story in the Register (and BBC news) on how there was a large amount of negative feedback using a web-based fax gateway (FaxYourMP.com I think). The government are doing a separate study on this as well, which the stand.org.uk campagn is against. They have received assurances from the government that any web based complaints will be treated as seriously as regular letters of complaint (much easier too).
If you don't like it though, there is a quick and easy opportunity to register your displeasure at it: www.stand.org.uk.
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
Talking to a friend of mine who worked for Income Support confirms this. She said that immigrants would come in and sign on, making no attempt to look for work. When she refused to pay them on those grounds, they frequently threatened her, and always appealed, and her decisions were always overturned by her managers who wanted to avoid any trouble. If they're given carte blanche to milk the state for money like this, of course they're going to do it. No wonder the UK seems like such an attractive place to come...
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
One: The standard is called "reasonable suspicion." RS is required to stop someone, or to detain for a "reasonable period for investigatory purposes. There's no bright-line rule about how long is "reasonable," but the courts are pretty flexible and are extremely unlikely to hold less than 30 minutes as unreasonable unless there's no basis for the stop in the first place. It's a pretty minimal standard: Walking down the street, handing something to the driver of a car, and walking away can easily qualify. RS also authorizes the officer to require ID, to use that force which is reasonable to effect the stop (including handcuffing when the subject gives indications of either fight or flight), and can justify a protective search for weapons, if the officer reasonably suspects the suspect may be carrying them. The relevant case law is Terry vs. Ohio, and the Court has pretty much sustained itself on that one. (The case you cite actually affirms Terry as to the "reasonable suspicion" standard. If you had actually read it, you'd have seen it.)
Two: ID can be required for administrative purposes (access to secure facilities like courthouses) and by any private entity for pretty much any private purpose.
Three: When I contact someone for a violation, where it goes depends a lot on whether or not he's identified to my satisfaction. If he doesn't have any form of ID, or gives me another reason to believe that he won't show up on his court date, then he's not going to be released from the scene on a citation. He MAY be released on no bond, but only after a ride and the booking procedures. The law does not obligate me as an officer to just take strangers at their word, and frequently requires that I not do so.
And what makes you think the UK wasn't? What does winning WWII have to do with the UK political system? Might makes right? The UK was committing atrocities and genocide for centuries before the Nazis even appeared on the scene--the UK just did it out of sight, overseas, to people who even today largely don't have much political say. The British Empire was one of the most evil institutions in human history.
Today, the UK has reformed, just like the rest of Europe, although it seems still quite a bit more right leaning.